Scott Adams predicted about a week ago that the wall would get funded, but that the media would report that it didn't get funded. The wall will get built, and the media will deny that it got built. It's literally the same thing that has been happening for 2 years. You of all people have to see it by now?
You can post all the fake news threads you want, doesn't mean they are inline with reality.

No stories to link to here. Just a simple question. How do you think having NO PRIVACY will affect your life?
Please consider multiple sources such as Govt, Insurance, Employers, Neighbors, Marketers and others I havent listed...

Those look like fairly nice neighborhoods.. amazing they can just leave a package outside like that for a little bit and they got so many bites..where the hell are they?? I get amazon packages and such almost weekly for almost 15 years and have never had a package stolen.. my neighborhoods have usually looked worse than that, with a couple exceptions.. I live in so cal, not in LA tho.

And so we come full circle ...
If they are going to strike it down because of its source (EO vs. act of Congress), then:
How can it possibly work to our advantage if the courts say, "This does not pass muster as an EO - but it might as an act of Congress ..."?
But if they are going to strike it down because of its substance, then:

You think the media would accurately deliver a message you approved of that Trump made to the American people without lying about it to make him look bad? In turn making what he was trying to say look bad? That is nuts..
It's amazing how some people are just not able to get what is going on here after all this time..

But this just puts it under the best-case "pointless and unnecessary" branch of the "either-or" I presented. (And it could end up under the worst-case "counter-productively dangerous" scenario if the BATFE decides to change its mind.)
What is the point of issuing a regulatory EO that won't be enforced? How is an unenforced EO (or an enforced one, for that matter) supposed to preempt or beat down the Democrats' gun-grabbing efforts in any way? And if, as you say, the courts would give greater deference to an act of Congress, then why should the Democrats feel at all inhibited or stymied by Trump's supposedly toothless EO? Indeed, it seems that just the opposite should be the case. After all, sharks don't go away when there's blood in the water ...
In short: the Trumpslanation we have been offered for this makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.
The sensible explanation is that this is not a ploy and that Trump is simply a half-assed gun-grabber (as accords with the history of his remarks on the issue going back decades). No chess required.